Hornung v. Eastern Auto. Forwarding Co.

11 F.R.D. 300, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 9, 1951
DocketCiv. A. No. 26599
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 11 F.R.D. 300 (Hornung v. Eastern Auto. Forwarding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hornung v. Eastern Auto. Forwarding Co., 11 F.R.D. 300, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617 (N.D. Ohio 1951).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action.

Defendant Eastern Automobile objects to plaintiff’s interrogatories 5 to 26 inclusive, on the grounds (1) that the interrogatories are directed to matters which occurred,at the scene of the accident, and since no officer or agent of Eastern was present at the accident, it is impossible for them to answer, (2) the interrogatories call for hearsay evidence, and (3) the deposition of the driver was taken prior to the serving of the interrogatories, and plaintiff therefore has the information desired.

The first objection perhaps was valid before the 1948 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.. Now, however, if a private corporation is served, the interrogatories must be answered by an officer or agent who shall furnish such information as is available. A corporation cannot avoid answer by an allegation of ignorance, if it can ■ obtain the information from sources under its control, although it may qualify its answers to show its source in order to avoid admission of something which it does not' admit. 4 Moore Federal Practice 33.26.

Admissibility of evidence at trial is not the test to determine whether an interrogatory is proper. If it will lead to' discovery of relevant or admissible evidence it is a proper interrogatory even though the answer be hearsay. Here it is probable that the answers will lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Finally, the various methods of discovery are , intended to be cumulative, not -alternative or exclusive. If defendant wishes to object on the grounds of a prior deposition, it is incumbent upon it to show [302]*302that a hardship or injustice is being done it. In this action, where defendant was the party taking the deposition of the driver, it can hardly rely on that fact to deprive plaintiff of his right to the use of interrogatories. 4 Moore 33.09.

The objections will be overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richlin v. Sigma Design West, Ltd.
88 F.R.D. 634 (E.D. California, 1980)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
505 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
United States v. 58.16 Acres of Land
66 F.R.D. 570 (E.D. Illinois, 1975)
Holt v. Southern Railway Co.
51 F.R.D. 296 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)
State ex rel. Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Rooney
399 S.W.2d 225 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1965)
Beckley v. Aktieselskabet Glittre
32 F.R.D. 384 (E.D. New York, 1963)
In Re Appeal of Goodfader
367 P.2d 472 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1961)
Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Rich
20 F.R.D. 112 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
Republic of China v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.
142 F. Supp. 551 (D. Maryland, 1956)
Greenbie v. Noble
18 F.R.D. 414 (S.D. New York, 1955)
Hudgins v. Georgia So. & Fla. Ry. Co.
16 F.R.D. 243 (M.D. Georgia, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F.R.D. 300, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornung-v-eastern-auto-forwarding-co-ohnd-1951.